Please help

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 02:28 AM

Overexposed? The sky was so bright bc of the snow and the sun just breaking though, but is this considered overexposed bc the sky is a little blown out? Any thing I can do? btw, the original was brightened from the raw file so I can darken it.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=101357635

And this photo is any different? Again, I know I shouldnt compate other photos in the database but thats the only way I can compare in this case to try and understand the difference.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...274047&nseq=49

Walter S · 03-03-2009, 02:36 AM

I would appeal, I like the shot alot!

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S

I would appeal, I like the shot alot!

Yea, and I have been paying attention to my backlit problems (still new at this), but the snow made everything so bright I knew a shot from this angle would have plenty of the train lit on the nose and side, but I really do not understand the overexposed rejection other than the bright sky. I set this up in camera for 5 minutes before it came making sure the exposure was dead center, maybe I brightened it from raw too much bc I was paranoid about the backlit rejections I have had haha.

JRMDC · 03-03-2009, 02:50 AM

Nice color, look forward to seeing it in. I'm ok with it as it is but I would be ok with it a bit darker, the engine is a little too well seen for being backlit, even given the snow.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Nice color, look forward to seeing it in. I'm ok with it as it is but I would be ok with it a bit darker, the engine is a little too well seen for being backlit, even given the snow.

Well, there is a mountainside and slope right behind me so there was alot of light reflecting off that directly into the direction of the train, which is why I knew this spot would give me some light on the nose of the engine when it came, bc normally without the snow, youd never be able to get this shot at sunset.

This train only runs east in daylight between 5-8pm, and its return trip is always around 10-11pm. Theres no other traffic on this line 99% of the time haha, this whole part of the Port Road branch/connecting subs is very hard to shoot in daylight.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Nice color, look forward to seeing it in. I'm ok with it as it is but I would be ok with it a bit darker, the engine is a little too well seen for being backlit, even given the snow.

Ok, how about this? I used the gradient neutral density filter in post processing to darken only the upper half of the image, brought out some saturation just in the sky above the yellow area of the sunset and upped the contrast just a touch so the engine is slightly darker. The sky was darker and much deeper blue than this (in person) in the upper area of the photo, but it got blown out bc I was metering for the snow and train.

This is the absolute best I can fix the blown out sky although I liked the original submission and I am waiting on the appeal.

I dont know why, but the photo attachments in the forum lose alot of quality and get grainy and blurry, just wanted to mention that since the attachment doesnt look as good as the one I would submit.

jdirelan87 · 03-03-2009, 05:18 AM

Keith,

Nobody has said it yet so let me break the ice; this shot is laughably over processed. To say there is a 'halo effect' where the sky meets the trees would be the understatement of the year so far. This is one of those photos you are going to have to go back to square one with if you want any chance of it getting onto RP

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdirelan87

Keith,

Nobody has said it yet so let me break the ice; this shot is laughably over processed. To say there is a 'halo effect' where the sky meets the trees would be the understatement of the year so far. This is one of those photos you are going to have to go back to square one with if you want any chance of it getting onto RP

What are you talking about the original or the one where I darkened the sky? The original wasnt processed at all other than brightness, contrast and shaprness. All I did adjust it in Canon DPP and sharpen it and save it as a jepg file and uploaded it. The only one I did anything else to was the one with the sky that was attached in the last message and I posted what I did to that one.

Laughably overproccesed, give me a break, neither of the rejections mentioned ANYTHING like that, maybe you should be a screener huh?

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdirelan87

Keith,

Nobody has said it yet so let me break the ice; this shot is laughably over processed. To say there is a 'halo effect' where the sky meets the trees would be the understatement of the year so far. This is one of those photos you are going to have to go back to square one with if you want any chance of it getting onto RP

If your talking about the yellow halo above the green burlington hopper in between the tree lines, that is the sun glowing off all the thin branches on the trees that are almost impossible to see in the compressed jpeg file, that glow is the same in the original RAW file on the camera itself right now, so if thats what you are referring to, sorry you are wrong. If it was overprocessed to where there was that much of a halo around that spot, you would see it everywhere, especially in the dark parts of the train and you dont.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 05:37 AM

And just so you know where exactly the sun was, it was literally in that exact spot above the Burlington car shining straight through between the trees 5 minutes before this, that area has the halo only bc the sun is glaring right through that spot just below the train.

jdirelan87 · 03-03-2009, 05:47 AM

Nope, sorry you're wrong one. I've shot alot of raw and jpeg files into the sun and its never turned out like that. Shooting into the sun doesn't make the light in the open and through the branches two completely different colors. If its not your post processing, then its your camera. See below, if that is not over processing, than nothing is

capwell · 03-03-2009, 05:50 AM

I've got to agree with John on this one. Concentrate on taking a good picture to begin with, and you won't have to go nuts with the post-processing. The thing to remember about editing your photos is that your viewers shouldn't be able to immediately point to them and say "well, THAT is sure photoshopped!" If you have to use the heavy hand, maybe the shot isn't internet-worthy.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdirelan87

Nope, sorry you're wrong one. I've shot alot of raw and jpeg files into the sun and its never turned out like that. If its not your post processing, then its your camera. See below, if that is not over processing, than nothing is

I'm not bothering to argue, I know I did barely any processing on it other than brightness, contrast, saturation, and sharpening. It wasnt rejected for overprocessing, so if you want to help with the reason it was rejected, I will listen.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 06:03 AM

Is it possible that its just oversaturation? I dont know anything else that it could be since I posted above the only changes I made to the raw file.

Walter S · 03-03-2009, 06:05 AM

The reason for the halo affect is because you lightened the photo up some. I still think its a great shot.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S

The reason for the halo affect is because you lightened the photo up some. I still think its a great shot.

Ok, that makes sense, I also lowered the saturation a good amount in that area using the one brush tool instead of lowering it through the whole image and it looks better, it was prob the brightening and the saturation, bc if you look at the ditch lights, they have that slight halo too from the saturation.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 06:32 AM

This has gotten way off track though, the rejection was for overexposure, I know a couple of you think its ok, but I want to get better with this, and I want to know possible reasons for that rejection bc I dont see this as overexposed and when it was taken it was actually slightly underexposed bc I thought the snow would blow out the ground. So I had the meter line in the viewfinder at about -1 on the 50d. The auto ISO was on, could that have been a problem?

JRMDC · 03-03-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kml928

This has gotten way off track though, the rejection was for overexposure,

No, things are not off track. The screener is not a god, and he is not giving the shot an hour of attention. He sees something, he thinks he has identified the issue, he clicks, he moves on. You could have done something not related to exposure, but the effect makes it look overexposed. You have a problem with the shot, think broadly about fixing it.

No, I can't see any way in which the auto ISO causes a problem like this.

DWHonan · 03-03-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kml928

This has gotten way off track though, the rejection was for overexposure, I know a couple of you think its ok, but I want to get better with this, and I want to know possible reasons for that rejection bc I dont see this as overexposed and when it was taken it was actually slightly underexposed bc I thought the snow would blow out the ground. So I had the meter line in the viewfinder at about -1 on the 50d.

In that kind of situation, expose for the sky and take care of the rest of the image later. Or don't worry about the rest of the image, expose for the sun and go for a pure silhouette -- didn't we have this discussion over the weekend?

Anyway, to get back on track: The original shot was rejected because the entire sky was blown out. It's all one giant mass of extremely light pink except for the glow from the sun just above the train. Back in those long-ago days when I was shooting film, I quickly learned that the best way to show off a sunset was to make sure the colors in the sky were dead-nuts-on represented correctly, and the rest of the image will take care of itself. Here's an example; this was shot on Provia 100F:

(Francisco, Indiana, October 3rd, 2004)

Note how the only way to determine the shape of the front end of the car is from the highlights reflecting light from the deep blue sky above and behind me, and how the Conrail logo barely shows up on the hi-cube. This is the level of color reproduction you want to achieve. (And yes, this is much more of a glint shot than what you were doing, but that's not the principle I'm arguing and I feel completely justified in using it for comparison since you chose a mid-day overcast snow shot to compare to your supernova sky.)

Keep in mind that your subject doesn't have to be properly represented in all its full detailed glory; use the light available to your advantage to achieve a unique result. Sometimes, a simple study in shape and color will produce a far more dramatic result than showing yet another trio of NS EMDs.

See? No detail on the ground up front, the golds and pinks are nice and rich, and the sky between the Berkshire foothills and the clouds is clearly not blown out -- there's a gradual but obvious change in tone from bottom to top.

kml928 · 03-03-2009, 07:46 AM

Well, I obviously went wrong somewhere, I started over with DPP and the raw file to tiff file and didnt brighten it as much so the sky stayed darker instead of blown out white and it ends up almost the same as the last one I tried to modify with post processing that I posted, just with the engine slightly darker.

I know what your saying with those last examples, I personally just like a sunset shot where I can see the train still, maybe I need light rigs like Knapp (j/k).

Guess I'll just let this one go and try again, you guys definately know what your talking about and I shouldnt question it still being new to this.

DWHonan · 03-03-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kml928

Guess I'll just let this one go and try again, you guys definately know what your talking about and I shouldnt question it still being new to this.

The questions you need to ask are of the form "why do you do X and how?" not "how come my Y was rejected when their Z was accepted?" You're new to the hobby -- don't pressure yourself to be perfect now, but instead work on developing your skills. Build a solid technical base and the results will come.

The single biggest piece of advice I can give: Take a photography course and be open-minded about what is taught so you can figure out how to apply those techniques to what you want to accomplish.

Chris Starnes · 03-03-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWHonan

The questions you need to ask are of the form "why do you do X and how?" not "how come my Y was rejected when their Z was accepted?" You're new to the hobby -- don't pressure yourself to be perfect now, but instead work on developing your skills. Build a solid technical base and the results will come.

Great advice, Dave. These forums would be much more productive for our newer photographer members if they would heed your suggestion.

JimThias · 03-03-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kml928

Ok, how about this? I used the gradient neutral density filter in post processing to darken only the upper half of the image, brought out some saturation just in the sky above the yellow area of the sunset and upped the contrast just a touch so the engine is slightly darker.

How about if you post the unedited version so we can see what you're working with to begin with?